People v. Williams
| Decision Date | 15 November 1988 |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Dwight WILLIAMS, Appellant. |
Gerald T. Barth by James Maxwell, Syracuse, for appellant.
Robert Wildridge by Edward McQuat, Syracuse, for respondent.
Before DILLON, P.J., and CALLAHAN, DENMAN, BALIO and LAWTON, JJ.
Defendant was convicted of murder, attempted murder, forcible rape, two counts of forcible sodomy, and two counts of criminal possession of a weapon. The trial court imposed consecutive sentences upon each conviction. Because defendant's possession of the knife and scissors was motivated by the same intent to use the weapons during the course of rape and sodomy, both counts of criminal possession were part of the same criminal transaction, and the sentence on one count should run concurrently with the other count (People v. Murphy, 115 A.D.2d 249, 496 N.Y.S.2d 168). The judgment must be modified accordingly.
Additionally, the trial court instructed the jury on three occasions that defendant had a right not to testify (see, CPL 300.10[2] ). Even though defendant never requested that charge, a reversal is not required. "Unlike a denial of a request for a 'no inference' charge, which is immune to harmless error analysis (see, People v. Britt, 43 N.Y.2d 111, [400 N.Y.S.2d 785, 371 N.E.2d 504]), giving the charge without request is subject to such analysis (see, People v. Vereen, 45 NY2d 856 [410 N.Y.S.2d 288, 382 N.E.2d 1151])" (People v. Koberstein, 66 N.Y.2d 989, 991, 499 N.Y.S.2d 379, 489 N.E.2d 1281). Here, the proof of defendant's guilt was overwhelming and any error in charging the jury that defendant had a right not to testify must be viewed as harmless (see, People v. Crimmins, 36 N.Y.2d 230, 367 N.Y.S.2d 213, 326 N.E.2d 787). We also note that defendant did not at any time object to the charge.
Defendant's remaining claims either lack merit or are not preserved for review, and we decline to exercise our discretion to review these claims in the interests of justice (CPL 470.15[6][a] ).
Judgment unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Baker
...v. Cleveland, 236 A.D.2d 802, 653 N.Y.S.2d 472, lv. denied 89 N.Y.2d 1033, 659 N.Y.S.2d 864, 681 N.E.2d 1311; see People v. Williams, 144 A.D.2d 1012, 1012, 534 N.Y.S.2d 292, lv. denied 73 N.Y.2d 984, 540 N.Y.S.2d 1018, 538 N.E.2d 370; see also People v. Taylor, 197 A.D.2d 858, 859, 602 N.Y......
-
People v. Smith
...People v. Mullally, 147 A.D.2d 904, 537 N.Y.S.2d 381, lv. denied 73 N.Y.2d 980, 540 N.Y.S.2d 1014, 538 N.E.2d 366; People v. Williams, 144 A.D.2d 1012, 1013, 534 N.Y.S.2d 292, lv. denied 73 N.Y.2d 984, 540 N.Y.S.2d 1018, 538 N.E.2d We have reviewed defendant's remaining contentions and find......
-
People v. Cleveland
...People v. Albritton, 204 A.D.2d 651, 612 N.Y.S.2d 233, lv. denied 84 N.Y.2d 822, 617 N.Y.S.2d 142, 641 N.E.2d 163; People v. Williams, 144 A.D.2d 1012, 534 N.Y.S.2d 292, lv. denied 73 N.Y.2d 984, 540 N.Y.S.2d 1018, 538 N.E.2d 370). Therefore, we modify the judgment by directing that the sen......
-
People v. Handley
...distinct from the act of attempted murder and thus the sentences must run concurrently (Penal Law § 70.25[2]; see, People v. Williams, 144 A.D.2d 1012, 534 N.Y.S.2d 292, lv. denied 73 N.Y.2d 984, 540 N.Y.S.2d 1018, 538 N.E.2d 370; People v. Murphy, 115 A.D.2d 249, 496 N.Y.S.2d 168, lv. deni......